Florida Appellate Court decision (February 5, 2015).
This case involved an appeal by a homeowners association of a trial court ruling that granted a homeowner the right to redeem its property after the association had taken title by way of a foreclosure sale.
In April of 2013, the association filed a suit to foreclose a claim of lien for past due assessmentsowed by the property owner. In March of 2014, the association was granted a final judgment which ordered the homeowner to pay the total amount owed or the property would be sold at public auction. The judgment specifically provided that “the property owner would be foreclosed of all claims on the property once the certificate of sale was filed.” On April 11, 2014, the court clerk filed a certificate of sale and the property was sold at public auction to the association. Five days later, on April 16, 2014, the owner of the property obtained a loan for the full amount of the judgment and sought to tender it to the association in order to redeem the property but the association refused the tender. Thereafter, the homeowner filed a motion seeking an order from the court compelling the association to accept the tender of the full amount that was owed at the time of the foreclosure sale. Without providing a reason for its decision, the trial court granted the motion and ordered the association to accept the redemption. The association appealed that ruling.
The appellate court reversed the trial court judgment andruled that under the applicable Florida statutes, where a final judgment provides that a right of redemption would be terminated upon the filing of a certificate of sale,a payment made after the filing of the certificate of sale will not entitle the owner to have the foreclosure sale set aside.Because the trial court judgment in this case provided that the right of redemption would be terminated upon the filing of a certificate of sale, the homeowner’s right to redeem the property was extinguished when the certificate of sale was filed 5 days earlier. The court further indicated that the sale would not be set aside under the equitable concepts of “fairness and justice.”
See case decision: Waterview_Towers_Yacht_Club_